O Mandelbrot, O Mandelbrot

21

Uncle binv is going to tell you a story about fractals! (mild / forced applause from the audience). This post draws heavily upon the **fantastic** post that columbia wrote in October - Fractals!!. Please read that post first.

One of the key behaviors / observations when it comes to Elliott Wave Analysis is that all market structures a) act on all degrees of trend simultaneously and b) are self-replicating on all degrees of trends. What this means is that an impulse looks substantially the same whether it is a subminuette degree wave viewed on a 1 minute chart or a primary degree wave viewed on a weekly chart.

This does *NOT* mean the all impulse wave are perfectly proportioned copies of each other (The market is made of people and we are not clones. We have variability and so do our endeavors, i.e. stock market behavior). There is variability in the structure of all waves. But what is important is that waves that perform the same function within the wave structure look *similar* at all degrees of trend. I will be discussing this more in a minute.

If you are interested in more discussion on this behavior, please let me know and I will point you in the right direction. But the theory is not the point of this post, it is the observations that can be seen in the current secular bear market. Again, this is a debatable point (secular bear market), but bear with me for just a moment.

Since the peak in Oct 2007, we have had several 5-wave sequences (impulse waves) moving downward and several corrective waves back up. In Elliott Wave parlance, the move from Oct 2007 to March 2009 was a primary degree wave, and the move from March 2009 to now is another primary degree wave. What I want to show in this post is show the form of the wave 1's down and the wave 2 retracements for a couple of the minor degree waves and above. I want to look at both the size of the retracement and the time of the retracement to see what common relationships we can see.

One thing to take note of as you look at the following charts is the wave structure down followed by the wave structure up. Like I mentioned above, the wave proportions for the Wave 1's are not *identical*, but they are similar. And you can tell what the wave's purpose is by how it formed, which parts moved down quickly and which parts went sideways, etc.

Before we go to the last chart and put this into perspective in the larger count, first notice that the structure of each Wave 1 down has a much clearer movement about it. It is an impulse wave and its movement slices through resistance, sometimes almost vertically. This is a motive wave, and its purpose is to carry the overall price movement in the direction of the wave that is one degree higher. And after each impulse wave down, there needs to be a correction. In this case it is a Wave 2. These waves tend to meander. However even when they trend strongly, the internal price action is very overlapping. This is one good way to tell a trending corrective wave from an impulse wave (there are other tells, but this is a key one).

And so what is interesting is that whether the price action took a couple of weeks to a couple of months to play out, the overall structure is very similar.

And this limited sample set verifies what we see about Wave 1 - Wave 2 relationships in many other scenarios(on 1 minute charts, 5 minute, etc.). Wave 2's typically (but not always) are deep retracement waves, meaning they retrace the previous Wave 1 by 50% to 62%. The duration of any corrective wave is much more variable. The time component is almost always a Fibonacci relationship too. In these cases we see between 24% and 62%. Sometimes Wave 2's can be as long in duration as Wave 1's, and much more infrequently, even longer (such as 162%).

But *usually* it one of these Fibonacci relationships: 50%, 62%, 79%, or 100%

So now stepping back at looking one degree higher, what do we see about the rally since March?

We can see that Primary 2 has hit many of the targets that we expect to see in relation to Wave 1. Additionally there is a lot about the internal wave structure in P2 that also has some nice Fibonacci relationships: Just a Step Back

So, What does this mean?

It means that conditions are ripe, from an Elliott Wave and Fibonacci Relationship perspective for Primary 2 to be done.

But just because conditions are ripe, does that mean we will begin P3 on Monday? **NO**. Absolutely not. It is a possible scenario, nothing more, nothing less.

P2 might not be done. It might rally up to the 62% level (1240) and take us out to July (100% of time as P1). That is another scenario where P2 would still be a viable proportion to P1.

The Elliott Wave count, just by itself, says we have reached important technical objectives and the count *could* be complete. However, when other factors are considered (bullish sentiment extreme among investors and fund managers, record lows of cash reserves in funds / many are "all-in", economic indicators if you dig below the surface, Fed liquidity statements, etc.) I think there is an increased possibility that this is the top of P2, if not close to it (just my opinion). I spent the last week establishing fresh short positions, but still have healthy cash reserves. I will add to shorts on a move higher or a confirmed breakdown. I do not like the risk / reward for being long here.

The point of this post, just like the point of any of my posts, it *not* to try to convince you of anything. I am an analyst who is sharing observations. That's all. It is immaterial to me whether you agree or disagree with my observations or conclusions. But I do hope that my observations are useful in helping you to formulate your own opinion, even if your conclusion is completely opposite of mine.

Even the most cursory glance at the economics literature will yield a perplexing cacophony of opinions - and, more invidious, contradictory "facts." Consider one example. Proposition: Share prices are dependent over (a) a day, (b) a quarter, (c) three years, (d) an infinite span, or (e) none of the above. All these views have been presented as unassailable in countless articles reviewed by countless worthy peers, and supported by countless computer runs, probability tables, and analytical charts. Wassily Leontief, a Harvard economist and 1973 Nobel winner in economic sciences, once observed: "In no field of empirical enquiry has so massive and sophisticated a statistical machinery been used with such indifferent results."

It is time to change that. As a first step, I issue a challenge to Alan Greenspan, Eliot Spitzer, and William Donaldson - Federal Reserve chair, New York attorney general, and SEC chair, respectively. In the April 2003 settlement of postbubble fraud charges, the biggest Wall Street firms agreed to cough up $432.5 million to fund "independent" research. Spitzer's office amply documented that what passed for investment research before was not only wrong but fraudulent. Since then, a long line of media and ratings firms have launched independent businesses. But there has been little discussion of what exactly these researchers should research.

I suggest just a small fraction of that sum - say, 5 percent - be set aside for fundamental research in financial markets. Let the vast bulk of the money go where it usually does: ephemeral and contradictory opinions on which stocks to buy, which to sell, and whether to buy or sell at all.

Very illuminating discussion. But I'm afraid you won't get very many recs when you post such mathematically stimulating material this late at night. Most traders and investors peak during the trading day (at least in the US) and are not nocturnal. The only reason I'm up is I have to run something for work after hours. Maybe you and port are in Europe for all I know.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone has done any backtesting trading leveraged ETF pairs using primary, intermediate or minor waves patterns.

It wouldn't be hard to do, I suppose. But right now, I'm just so sleepy................